How Many CD's do you own?

Well, I do give a couple of thousand dollars to charity every year

So you could afford to own and keep your records of music on CD ... even if your life depended on it ...

quote:

Originally posted by MangoMonkey:
Ah, but is it theft? In any case, I'm more interested in the morality than in the legality.

Legally, I might be in the wrong, but I could care less.

Morally: I really don't care. Just chill.

So you don't care. I hope not to meet you in jail which is where you belong ...

quote:

Originally posted by George Johnson:

quote:

Originally posted by MangoMonkey:
Ah, but is it theft? In any case, I'm more interested in the morality than in the legality.

Legally, I might be in the wrong, but I could care less.

Morally: I really don't care. Just chill.

So you don't care. I hope not to meet you in jail which is where you belong ...

But it's not funny is it?

Not

PS: I sincerely hope the PRS is attentive and raid your home and remove you ripped illegal FLACS before an exemplary prosecution.

If you care to consider it, you have already lost the case with you undeletable posts this evening - unless they are a troll, writ large.

I have to say that normally I would wish you luck, but I would not go so far in your case. Your brazen self-confidence in defying the law and decent morality should indeed see you found guilty for several hundred hours of community service [or a prison sentence] and a permanent criminal record.

I should start worrying now and see if the moderators would pull all you posts to this thread, if I were you.

It may well be too late ...

Ah George. It'll be fun to get to know you. I respect your passion. I'll definitely try look you up when I'm in England next time. (Good to know someone across the pond). I'll even have some of your ice cream. You probably already use some of the software I write.

I do see your point. It does make life easier by treating it as black and white. I understand where you're coming from. I must admit, to a certain degree I've just been egging you along.

Here's the deal: My primary motivation here is that I don't want too much stuff lying around my home. I'm not even taking this personally any more. I'm just taking the side of a guy who a) periodically runs through his collection of CDs,
b) takes 10% of them that he hasn't listened to in years,
c) and just brings them in into a second hand store instead of throwing them into the trash can.
d) This music might reside on a hard drive somewhere, but again might not.
e) I also incidentally happen to have a Zune Pass. For $15 a month to Microsoft, I get to listen to whatever music I want and get to keep 10 songs. (A little like spotify in europe, I guess).

e) does just things a little doesn't it. Yes, I've got the music ripped from the CD I owned. But I also have access to the same music through the Zune pass that I'm paying for.

f) Some college kid gets to buy the CD that I did not trash for $2. (Just curious: are you also against this aspect? If so, that's a whole different discussion, and you should take it up with the folks who run second hand record stores and vinyl stores, not with me).

Please reply to this if you like. I'll be happy to let you have the last word.

cheers !

... to buy the CD that I did not trash for $2. Just curious: are you also against this aspect? If so, that's a whole different discussion, and you should take it up with the folks who run second hand record stores and vinyl stores, not with me

Of course not, if I believed that you did not retain a lossless copy! I have bought secondhand CDs for above and below their original issue sale price.

But please do carry on the exchange. I have no problem discussing any situation with anyone ...

I am content to leave the last word in the conversation with the winner of the arguement, and you may trump me yet, and I am ready for how you will, even if I cannot currently see how ...

As a matter of fact, I did not retain lossless copies.

Does it matter though? I think retaining 326 Kbps is equally bad.

(The fact that I never went back and listened to them is a totally different aspect. Was old stuff that I didn't care about anymore).

Also, I have access to all of this music through the Zune pass.

How about this:
I paid $15 for the CD. I sold it for 0.50 cents. $14.50 has gone to the artist etc. I've just kept a copy for the off chance that I might want to listen to it again. Is it really that bad?

If the issue here is that the artist does not get their dues, second hand stores should really be closed down, no? It's just the dealer making money there, not the artist etc.

Here's an argument in your favor. What if I kept the original CD, and sold a copy once for 50 cents. Somehow, i would feel worse about that, even though it's effectively the same thing... yeah, I'm not sure how to resolve this.

Honestly speaking, I've not heard a killer argument about why what I'm doing is wrong.

Just curious: what kind of ice creams do you make?

Here's an argument in your favor. What if I kept the original CD, and sold a copy once for 50 cents. Somehow, i would feel worse about that, even though it's effectively the same thing... yeah, I'm not sure how to resolve this.

Not rationally, as that is as wrong as selling the original for the same money and keeping a copy - any copy - but if you don't listen to your retained copy, why not simply access youtube [or whatever] on a possibly lower quality but legally if you ever want to listen to it agian, assuming it not something broadcast on the radio from time to time ...

Just curious: what kind of ice creams do you make?

Not telling a lie to say that it is the best made in Britain, and that we are taking the "Ben and Jerry" contracts here and there, because their QA control has gone to pot since the starters sold out.

We are a fourth generation family company with a mere four on the production staff! Cottage industry maybe, but one that does not compromise for the first fast buck!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by George Johnson:
Here's an argument in your favor. What if I kept the original CD, and sold a copy once for 50 cents. Somehow, i would feel worse about that, even though it's effectively the same thing... yeah, I'm not sure how to resolve this.

Not rationally, as that is as wrong as selling the original for the same money and keeping a copy - any copy - but if you don't listen to your retained copy, why not simply access youtube [or whatever] on a possibly lower quality but legally if you ever want to listen to it agian, assuming it not something broadcast on the radio from time to time ...

Well, the same hoarding mentality I guess. Sane as having 3000 CDs. How often does one get around to listening to one of those, I wonder.

Eventually, the attachment weakens, and I hit the delete button. Just hard to let go, I guess, which is why I keep the copy.

I suspect the PRS or its American equivalent would soon see how often you played a recording for which [in the absense of the original purchased softeware - LP, CD, tape - was in strict terms illegally held] you had used. If never then the case does kind of fall away ...

Myself, I take a view about something I have recently not accessed in iTunes, and delete even though I still have the CD, after a decision! I currently have eight CDs waiting for Oxfam!

But I am the reverse of a collector - I have a compulsion to part with the usused, and when I die, I hope one trip to the tip should see all my rubbish gone! The valuables are small in size and small in number, but will be snapped up by those who find out in time - just like that!

ATB from George

quote:

Originally posted by George Johnson:
I suspect the PRS or its American equivalent would soon see how often you played a recording for which [in the absense of the original purchased softeware - LP, CD, tape - was in strict terms illegally held] you had used. If never then the case does kind of fall away ...

Ah, but you're being paranoid there I suspect. Seriously, no one cares. If they do, they won't soon. Really, there is no case.

The music industry is changing fundamentally.

If a musician is any good, they will be able sell their stuff online, without labels coming in the way.

That's what you really want, I suspect. Good musicians will get paid.

a) Labels will and should not get in the way of talent.
b) They shouldn't be allowed to promote folks as artists even though the talent lies in areas other than music.

Having access to something like the Zune Pass, fundamentally changes the way you think about things.

How many CDs do I own? Who cares? I have access to all the world's music at my fingertips. It's all 'legal'. It's not lossless yet (it's 256 Kbps), but for the masses it's good enough. It'll become lossless in 10 years, if the public clamors for it and there's enough competition in that space and if and when bandwidth becomes cheap.

I'm sure there are recordings that are rare and out of print that I won't have access to. That's the exception, rather than the rule though.

Amazon, for instance, allows folks to publish books for a small fee, for instance. No need to run around to publishers any more.

At the time I posted the fact that I OWN/PAID FOR more than 300 CD's, this thread has become a morality-thread (or threat?!)

About that I'd say (what others have said): he, who is without sin, cast the first stone!

quote:

Originally posted by George Johnson:
The frame work of morality is clear;

The Ten Commandment are the basis of Western Law [like it or nor not]:

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.'

So no stealing and no telling lies ...

George

Stealing as a breach of law is dependant on the laws of a specific country.

While in the UK it may be illegal to make copies of music CD's, there are several countries now that I know of where it is allowed to make copies for personal use regardless whether one owns the CD that is being copied or not or even if the music is actually presented as a CD or as files. This means it is not illegal everywhere to make copies of music CD's. Artists are usually compensated for loss of income by all kinds of tax levies put on all kinds of recordable media.

So there is no illegal act and no loss of income to artists in these countries.

That leaves us only with the argument whether it is ethical or not (moral is not the right term and means something quite different).

Ethics is a very personal thing and IMO heavily influenced by conduct of all parties in society. Some people might develop an attitude of "you screw me, I screw you" if they see unethical behaviour with other persons/institutions/companies.
And what one person considers to be ethical and unethical might not be so for others.

I have followed many of these discussions on several fora and on non of them there is any concensus in the end. It always remains a thing of personal ethics and (il)legality as determined by laws and compensation schemes in specific countries.
And I don't expect it to be any different on this forum.

-
aleg

quote:

Originally posted by Aleg:

quote:

Originally posted by George Johnson:
The frame work of morality is clear;

The Ten Commandment are the basis of Western Law [like it or nor not]:

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.'

So no stealing and no telling lies ...

George

Stealing as a breach of law is dependant on the laws of a specific country.

While in the UK it may be illegal to make copies of music CD's, there are several countries now that I know of where it is allowed to make copies for personal use regardless whether one owns the CD that is being copied or not or even if the music is actually presented as a CD or as files. This means it is not illegal everywhere to make copies of music CD's. Artists are usually compensated for loss of income by all kinds of tax levies put on all kinds of recordable media.

So there is no illegal act and no loss of income to artists in these countries.

That leaves us only with the argument whether it is ethical or not (moral is not the right term and means something quite different).

Ethics is a very personal thing and IMO heavily influenced by conduct of all parties in society. Some people might develop an attitude of "you screw me, I screw you" if they see unethical behaviour with other persons/institutions/companies.
And what one person considers to be ethical and unethical might not be so for others.

I have followed many of these discussions on several fora and on non of them there is any concensus in the end. It always remains a thing of personal ethics and (il)legality as determined by laws and compensation schemes in specific countries.
And I don't expect it to be any different on this forum.

-
aleg

You are right: I should have used "ethical" instead.

Back to opening question 1,700 CDs and 820 LPs.

yes, sorry to divert the thread.
About 140 physical CDs, and around 60 albums purchased from Amazon.com and/or iTunes. :-)

quote:

Originally posted by MangoMonkey:
Well, I do give a couple of thousand dollars to charity every year (my spouse insists on it), and my company matches it. One really has nothing to do with the other.

I stand completely corrected.

I must say that I am enjoying this thread, even if it has diverted away from the initial title along the way.

quote:

Originally posted by George Johnson:
Oh no one by now believes the record companies [like any capialist organisation] are working other than for the shareholders.

George, I do think this is an interesting argument, and from a personal point of view I do buy commercial releases, but in the spirit of the discussion.

The record companies really have behaved in an appalling way, and so while I agree that music should not be stolen, I do not see any retribution being taken against the record companies for their actions in the past.

Another key thing about the record companies is that they have large legal departments, and so can fight cases that others can not defend, and can defend themselves through the kind of legal loopholes such departments can find.

As big 'capitalist organisations' have influence which gets them favours from those in power.

Your argument would be valid in practical terms if justice for rich and poor were dealt with equally, but sadly it is not, and in the case of record companies they are now behaving like bullies.

Legally and ethically stealing is wrong, but is stealing from a theif quite as wrong?

BTW MangoMonkey, a little late perhaps, but welcome to the Forum

I think we can all empathise with this: comic Stewart Lee on his addiction to collecting:

"I calculated the scale of the problem. Those prolific genius artists were just the start of it – I had 6ft of Fall CDs, 5ft 8in of Miles Davis, 5ft 6in of Sonic Youth and its solo spin-offs, 5ft 2in of John Coltrane, 4ft 11in of the free improviser Derek Bailey, 4ft 4in of Robert Pollard and Guided by Voices, 3ft of Bob Dylan, 2ft 8in of the Byrds and various tributaries, 2ft 6in of the Texan outsider artist Jandek and 2ft 4in of the saxophonist Evan Parker; I had 20ft of European improvised music, 20ft of jazz, 14ft apiece of British folk music, reggae, and blues, 7ft of Japanese psychedelia, and 6ft each of music from Tucson, New Zealand and 1970s Germany. Even after a massive cull, I reckon I still had 350ft of recorded sound which I imagined I needed to keep. And don't talk to me about iPods. They haven't built the iPod that can cope with that. And I want inlay cards, and accompanying essays and the physical contact with the physical objects and the memories they evoke"

Although from what Richard was saying regarding his Mozart box sets, I'm not so sure I'd agree with the following:

"And all this stuff, in the digital age, is literally worthless financially, and losing any value it had daily"

quote:

Originally posted by JamieL_v2:

quote:

Originally posted by George Johnson:
Oh no one by now believes the record companies [like any capialist organisation] are working other than for the shareholders.

George, ... ...

Another key thing about the record companies is that they have large legal departments, ...

As big 'capitalist organisations' have influence which gets them favours from those in power.

Your argument would be valid in practical terms if justice for rich and poor were dealt with equally, but sadly it is not, and in the case of record companies they are now behaving like bullies.

Legally and ethically stealing is wrong, but is stealing from a their quite as wrong?

Dear James,

In real terms the point about the same law for rich and poor is even more important than theft, but the legal system certainly does favour the wealthiest organisations and individuals. Put simply they can afford the best Lawyers, and if the best Lawyers were not more successful in working for the interest of those who give them a brief, they would not be the best and therefore command a rate of remuneration that rules them out for all but the richest patrons ...

Anyway, there is one interesting point that has come up. In some countries there is an additional tax on home recording software, and in those countries the law is different over copying.

I am not going to re-iterate my position where the law is that copying and then selling [or even giving away] the original is illegal.

As a matter of interest it is relatively easy to trace how many times a specific recording has been player via a computer based media layer, and the time and date will be stored as well. It is fascinating sometimes to look at when I last played something!


ATB from George

George

What would be your view on downloading an album that was no longer available? I have about ten albums burned from downloads of albums that are no longer available to buy, and are pretty unlikely to ever be made so.

They might appear on Ebay for 'silly' money, or even Amazon marketplace, but I am not paying over £60 for thirty five minutes of music.

________________________________________

There is also an interesting point that I haven't seen explored on this forum. As far as I know, if you buy a product and it is substandard, or not suitable for use, you are entitled to a full refund. Has anyone taken a recording back for any of the following reasons:

1.The music is below a standard you would have expected from that musician (eg. Genesis 'Abacab')

2.The mastering had compressed the music to a point that is below a standard that should be expected for a CD (eg. the recent Metallica and Rush albums).

I can say that I, and apparently many others, took back William Orbit 'Pieces in a classical Style', as we were expecting an adaptation of the music, and not a pretty pointless straight playing of the pieces using synthesizers.
__________________________________________________

There has also been an interesting discussion on the Underworld forum over their release of Rick Smith 'Bungalow with Stairs' album, which is only available on CD format together with the exhibition catalogue for fellow Underworld member Karl Hyde's painting exhibition 'What's going on in your head when you are dancing?'

The music on the CD was compiled for use as the soundtrack in the exhibition rooms., from Ricks SMiths archive of ambient recordings, and live link sections. The cost for the CD and catalogue is £30, and I think is a lovely package and well worth that money, but a number of fans wish to have the music without the catalogue, and there has been some complaint that the music has not been made available for download (MP3 and wav) as with most of their other releases, usually around £10, with printable artwork.

Underworld are not on a record label, and so can control how their music, and indeed art is sold. I feel the artist has the right to release the music in whatever format they wish to do so, and to charge what they feel is acceptable for it. Acceptable probably being the key word, but evidently many of their fans do not think this.

I remember that many years ago Jean Michel Jarre recorded an album (Music for Supermarkets) which had one copy pressed, auctioned for charity, and the mater tapes destroyed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_for_Supermarkets

Any thoughts.

About 2000 cds and 1500 lps. Most of the lps are boxed in the garage. I never download or copy cds I could buy in the shops although I have quite a few bootleg live albums acquired from various sources. I feel not the slightest guilt at this because it doesn't cost the artist anything and indeed on quite a few occasions I've bought cds after hearing the live stuff.
While in way do I condone mass downloading I think the music companies have asked for trouble. I've sometimes bought cds from the US because they were cheaper than in the UK. When they've arrived I've often found they've actually been manufactured in the UK. How could it be cheaper to manufacture in the UK, export to the US, then send it back to me in the UK, than to buy it in the UK. Ridiculous.

However, being in the IT business I work with plenty of people with the means and know how to download movies and music in large quantities and I'm shocked at how much it goes on. Sometimes they've even got the nerve to complain that something wasn't very good, or sounded or looked bad.

>650 CDs on last count bout a couple weeks ago.

quote:

"And all this stuff, in the digital age, is literally worthless financially, and losing any value it had daily"

Not necessarily.

BTW, I must have around 8ft of Miles Davis.